Disposed

Sri.a.Rajender v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC3 Aug 2023WP/20696/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court directed TSRTC not to issue Show Cause Notices or take coercive steps. It ordered petitioners to submit detailed explanations within two weeks, directing the regional manager to grant a hearing and pass orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Set aside issuance of Show Cause Notices temporarily; directed TSRTC to allow hearing on explanations within two weeks and pass orders within four weeks without coercive steps.

Sri.a.Rajender Vs Telangana State Road… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I32s2l

¶2

l.,

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUSI TWO ]-HOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 20696 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sri A.Rajender, S/o. Rajaiah, Aged about 4Oyears, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 1-1-249, Weekly Bazar, Jagtiyal, Karimnagar District, Telangana State505451

¶11

Sri M.Dayanandam, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. HNo.4-1-13012, Vani Nagar, Jagtiyal, Karimnagar District, Telangana State50545'l

¶12

...pETraoNERS

¶13

AND

¶14

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Vice Charrman, Bus Bhavan, [Vlusheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶15

Telangana State Road Transpo( Corporation, Rep by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶16

Executive Director, (REV & lT) and Secretary to Corporation, Bus Bhavan, OPD (Mktg and Corn) wing, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶17

The Divisiorral Manager, TSRTC, Karimnagar Division, Karimnagar District, Telangana State.

¶18

The Regional Manager, TSRfC, Karimnagar Region, Karimnagar District, Telangana State-505 001 .

¶19

The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Jagtiyal Bus Station, Karimnagar District, Telangana State-505 001 .

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the sth Respondent issue Show Cause Notice dated.21 07.2023 through Respondent No.6 is highly, unw.arranted, highly arbitrary, unfair, unjust, irrational, unlawful and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same.

¶22

IAN^O:1oF2023 CP{)^{praying that in the ci'cumstances stated in} Petition^{under Section1 5'1} petrtion the^{Hrgh Courtn ay be pleased to stay} the^{affidavit filedin supportof the} clrsposal^{of the mainwrit petltion'} of all^{further proceedirrgs pending}

¶23

IA NO:^2aF2023 g that^{in the cLrcumstancesstatedin} Fetition^{under Section15'1 (lPCprayrn} in"^{*'nn court maY be Pleasedto} the^{affidavit filedin support of the petition'} 07-2023^{issueC bY the ResPondents} suspend *""^U ,""0'"n^{the Show Cause Notice disposal of the mainwr daled.21'it petitio} n.

¶24

FoR^rsRrc 3::[:i^{[:lffi l::x3ffi:.:x'Ill3$"=^lHJl'?t' '"} The^{Gourt madethe followrng} : ORDER

¶25

¶26

HON'BLE^{MRS JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA} RIT ETIT N .206 oF 20

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard tearned^{counset for thepetitionersand} learned Standing^{Counsel appearing onbehalf of} respondents/TSRTC.

¶29

2 The prayer in the^{present writ petitionis as under:}

¶30

"To issue a writ^{order or direction more particularly} one in the^{nature of writ of mandamus declaringthe} action of the 5th^{Respondentissue Show Cause} Notice dated^?-7.07 '2023^{through respondent No'6 is} highly unwarranted,^{highly arbitrary,unfair, unjust'} irrational, unlawful^{and violativeoF Articles14 and} 21 of the Constitution^{of India and consequently set} aside the^same."

¶31

The^{petitionersin the presentwrit petitionchallenges the} ShowCauseNoticesdated2l.0T.2023issuedvideproceedings No.E5l L22(47)/20^{12-RM: KR and proceedings No'E5 / 122(48) /} 2012-RM:KRtopetitionerNo'landproceedingsNo'ES/L22(49)/ 2012-RM:KR to Petitioner^No'2'

¶32

PE USED^THE ECORD.

¶33

¶34

4, Condition No.2 of the Deed of Licence dated 30.O1.2015 entered into between the petitioner No.1 and respondent corporation reads as under:

¶35

''The lrcence is to carry out Kjrana & General in Shop/stall No.16 admeasuring 11,.9 X 13, in JGTL Bus Station. The license is not entiued t() carry out any business, which is prohibited by law. However, sale of Liquor, items such as fresh meat/chicken, fresh or dry fish etc, is not permitted.,'

¶36

Condition No.2 of the Deed of Licence dated 3O.01.2O1S entered into between the petitioner No.2 and respondent corporation reads as under:

¶37

"The licence is to carry out Jeans Corner in Shop/stali No.18 admeasuring 11,.9 X 13, in IGTL Bus Station. The license is not entiUed io carry out any business, which is prohibited by law. However, sale of Liquor, items such as fresh meat/chicken, fresh or dry fish etc, is not permitted..,

¶38

Condition No.16 of the Deed of Licence dated 30.01.2O15 entered into between the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 with the respondent corporation reads as u nder:

¶39

"Other than the interior modifications referred to above, the licensee shall not carry out any additions/alternations affecting either in terna I or external structure and over or abutting the existing structure.,,

¶40

¶41

SSION AND CONCL I

¶42

The case of the petitioners is that the Show Cause Notices dated 2L.O7.2023 issued individually to the petitioners herein are vague and do not reflect Condition No.16 and instead it indicates Condition No.2 and as per Condition No.23 of Deed of Licence, the petitioners'case does not fall in any of the clause's stipulated therein under Condition No.23, where under the contract of the petitioners can be terminated and therefore, the respondent authorities should not have issued the Show Cause Notices, dated 2L.O7.2023, for termination of licence, and hence the said Show Cause notices need to be quashed.

¶43

B. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent corporation points out to the Court that in spite of the earlier notices dated 02.09.2021, L5.09.2O2L and 05.07.2022 issued to the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to vacate the encroached area or to pay the extra licence fee, the petitioners did not respond and the petitioners violated condition No.2 and condition No.16 of the deed of licence dated 30.01.2015 entEred into between the^petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 individually with the respondent corporation and hence the respondent authority

¶44

¶45

was constrained to issue present impugnecl notices and that there is no illegality in issuance of the notices and the petitioners only had to submit their detaired expranations to the said show cause notices and the respondent authority vrould consider the same in accordance to Iaw and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable period.

¶46

9, Taking into consideration the submissions made by both learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for resporrdent corporation, this Court opines that the petitioners are not entitted for the relief of setting aside the show cause notices dated 27.O7.2A23 issued vide proceedings No.ES/122(47)/ 2O12-RM:KR and proceedings No.ES/L22(48)/ 2O12-RM:KR to petitioner No.1 and proceedings No.ES/L22(49)/2OL2-RM:KR to petitioner No.2 and the petitioners are directed to submit their detailed explanation to the show cause notices dated 21.O7.2023 issued by the Regional Manager, Karimnagar, within a period of two (O2) weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the Regionat Manager, Karirtrnagar shall consider the exptanation furnished by the petitioners by giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the

/ r'

petitioners and pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law, duly communicating the decision to the petitioners within a period of four (O4) weeks, on receipt of the explanation furnished by the petitioners to the show cause notices dated 2l,Ol .ZOZ3 issued to the petationers herein, and titl the said exercise as stipulated by this Court is initiated and conctuded, the respondents shall not

¶51

initiate any coercive steps against the petitioners.

¶52

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

Miscellaheous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶54

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶55

//TRUE COPY//

¶56

SD/- T.TIRUMALA^DEVI ASSTSTANT.REGISTRAR sECiLr#r oFFtcER

¶57

¶58

The Chairman, Telangana^{State Road Transport Corporation, ViceBus} Bhavan, Musheerabad,^HYderabad.

¶59

Z ifre Mtahaging Director,^{T6langana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus} Bhavan, Musheerabad, HYderabad

¶60

3 Eieiutive Director,^{(REV.-and lT) and Secretaryto.Corporation, Bus Bhavan,} OPD (Mktg. and Coin)wing,^{Jvlusheerabad,Hyderabad}

¶61

+. inJo'ivisi5nii rilanagar,^{TSRTC,KarimnagaiDivision,KarimnagarDistrict,} Telangana State.

¶62

S fnJn"eglonai Manager,^{TSRTC, Karimnagar Region, KarimnagarDistrict,} Telangana State-505^001.

¶63

6 TnJDlpot Manager,^{TSRTC, JagtiyalBus Station, KarimnagarDistrict,} Telanoana State-505 001.

¶64

7 One iC to SRt VLADIMEER^{KHATOON,Advocate} [oPUC]

¶65

A One CC to SRI GADDAM^{SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC} [OPUC] 9 Two CD Copies

PSK L

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310812023

ORDER

c-.jiAiC r)
t'
ta<
i:)
iC
11 []Glm
.. 'j

¶71

WP.No.20696 of 2023

¶72

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS.

Sri.a.Rajender v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.a.Rajender v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lords Organization Vs Sri.Rajesh Bhushan IAS

Sanna Mahadev Vs The State of Telangana

G.T. Narayana Coaching Center Vs The State of Telangana

Ms Himaja Guduru Vs The State of Telangana

Katta Vishwanatham, Vs Union of India

Mohd Majid Vs Union of India